Same old same old

It seems so long ago that the Lib leadership race was supposed to put the sponsorship scandal, the income-trust investigation, and the rest of the party's "anything goes as long as you don't get caught" philosophy in the rear-view mirror. Now that there's power at stake in the midst of the race, however, that desire for change seems long forgotten, as epitomized by a prominent Ignatieff blog supporter's reaction to allegations of wrongdoing by Iggy's campaign.

First, take a look at the Libs' actual press release:

The Liberal Party of Canada, in conjunction with its Ontario wing, has reviewed a complaint received by a Mr. George Kunz regarding memberships and the leadership campaign of Mr. Michael Ignatieff.

The Party notes that the complainant made allegations immediately after the prescribed membership challenge period under section 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure had ended. Repeated efforts to contact the complainant were unsuccessful.

The Party has determined that there is no basis for a formal complaint and this matter is now closed.

It's hard to see how the release could be more clear in establishing that the party saw itself as lacking jurisdiction to deal with the complaint based on when it was filed. There's room for debate whether or not that's a fair justification for not investigating wrongdoing (and indeed the need for some finality may well make deadlines understandable). But there's certainly no doubt that the decision was based on a "formal complaint" process, and avoided the merits of the case entirely.

But for Ted, that distinction is completely lost:

Dirty old style politics failed to win another one yesterday, as the Liberal Party saw right through the fraudulent smear tactics and gave Ignatieff a 100% clearing.

In other words, Ted takes the fact that the rules don't allow Ignatieff's actions to be investigated as the equivalent of saying that the matter has been thoroughly investigated such as to prove Ignatieff's innocence. And just for good measure, he also seems to honestly believe that the accuser must have been engaged in "fraudulent smear tactics" in suggesting any problem could have existed - rather than, say, having honestly not known that Ignatieff's conduct would be immune from review past the prescribed challenge period.

Needless to say, that type of attitude only seems likely to discourage any efforts at whistle-blowing or legitimate investigation - whether within the party itself, or within the government were the Libs to return to power. And if any substantial portion of the Libs really believes that a possible problem hidden past the time when it can be investigated is the same as no problem at all, then there's all the more reason not to give them another chance to make those kinds of judgments where Canada's government is concerned.

The hot air continues

Rona Ambrose may somehow be receiving headlines about her "tough" language on greenhouse gas emissions. But judging from the apparent plans, Ambrose's words are the only tough part of the Cons' scheme, as the actual targets on oil and gas will be through the industry's preferred means of deferring any real action:

Oil industry sources said yesterday the Tories intend to set standards to reduce “energy intensity” in the sector, an approach that would reduce emissions for every barrel produced.

That approach, which is favoured by the Alberta government and the industry, would see emissions continue to rise as oil-sands development booms, but would slow the pace of the growth.

Environmentalist Pierre Sadik of the David Suzuki Foundation said Ms. Ambrose's strong language “sounds promising” but requires tough action to be credible.

“It has to lead to meaningful cuts in pollution emissions,” Mr. Sadik said. “Regulations in terms of intensity are a waste of time because emissions continue to rise.”

Of course, the Cons (like their Alberta cousins) are perfectly happy to keep wasting time as long as they're able to keep getting positive press based on their posturing. Which means that there'll be no realistic chance for real emission-reduction plans to be implemented as long as the media is willing to pretend that "intensity" targets are anything but an excuse to keep increasing emissions.

Update: Of course, the media could do even worse by ignoring the "intensity" farce entirely. Which brings us to CanWest's coverage...

No done deal

The Cons may be doing their best to claim that the softwood lumber capitulation is over and done with. But the reality is something else entirely, as over 20% of the industry still hasn't been forced into signing on and the small matter of Canada's successful litigation still hasn't been resolved:

(T)he U.S. stipulation that all lumber-related trade cases be withdrawn was impossible to finesse, said Mr. Gray.

"The last I heard, it was 86 companies out of the 400 or so had not signed," he said. "I think that's their single most important issue.

"Our rights are our rights in American courts and I don't know how they can take that away from us."

Of course, it's hard to know how the Cons can manage to live in an alternate reality either. Yet here's their take on how the deal came about in the first place:

Mr. Emerson was unavailable but said in a news release the extension came after close consultation and in direct response to a request from the industry.

"The Softwood Lumber Agreement was negotiated in close co-operation with our softwood lumber industry and the provinces," he said.

Needless to say, the supposed "close co-operation" in fact consisted primarily of keeping Canada's interests away from the bargaining table, then imposing a terrible deal based on a claim that it's too late to do any better. And all indications are now that the Cons are only looking for ways to "co-operate" just a bit more with the current holdouts - both by playing down yet another impending decision which could boost Canada's position, and by looking for new and creative ways to suppress the rights of the producers who haven't yet given in.

The good news, though, is that there are still plenty of producers still fighting to defend the Canadian interests that the Cons want to sell out. And now that the Cons' claims to near-unanimity (not to mention their threats to the holdouts) have been shown to be as empty as the rest of their public statements on the file, there's no reason at all for those producers to give up now.

Poor excuses

The U.S. is attempting to disavow any blame in Maher Arar's rendition based on a claim that it didn't think Arar would be tortured in Syria. After all, surely nobody (much less the U.S. itself) had any reason to suspect what ultimately happened.

Fine and dandy

The Libs have fined Joe Volpe $20,000 for violating party rules by paying for the memberships of new recruits. But Volpe is denying everything and vowing to appeal the decision:

Mr. Volpe can either pay the $20,000 fine within 30 days or drop out of the race, the party said in a release.

Mr. Volpe immediately issued a statement suggesting he'll do neither.

"The press release issued today by the Liberal party as well as the haste to proceed without due process seems designed to inflict as much damage as possible on my campaign immediately prior to the delegate selection meetings," Mr. Volpe said.

He added his campaign will mount a "vigorous appeal."

It's somewhat surprising that Volpe is willing to take the time away from his campaign to launch a challenge. But at the very least, one can safely say Volpe is serious about fighting the charge on principle when it would only take four teenagers' donations to cover the fine.

The only question now is whether it's him or the party which bears the brunt of the aftereffects of today's announcement. But even as Libs make their effort to engage in belated damage control, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the party hasn't changed a bit from the group that was rightly voted out of office.

Continued pressure

In case there was any doubt as to whether the Cons would be let off the hook for failing in their promises to Saskatchewan, Lorne Calvert is calling for Saskatchewan to receive a new "side deal" similar to those given to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland if the new equalization formula doesn't exclude resource revenue:

If the Harper government backs away from its election promise to remove oil revenue from the federal equalization formula, Saskatchewan wants a deal with Ottawa outside the program, Premier Lorne Calvert said Thursday.

Calvert said he is concerned by the Prime Minister's suggestion this week that changes to the revenue-sharing program may not be ready in time for the next budget.

"They're building a spring budget, we've had the assurance we're going to have it in this budget, then let's have it," Calvert said...

Until Thursday, Calvert hadn't publicly mentioned the idea of a side deal for Saskatchewan since the Conservatives came to power.

But with the lack of clarity from Ottawa, the premier said he wants to make sure his province is taken care of.

"We have lived with the unfairness of equalization for years," Calvert said. "Enough is enough already. We have a commitment."

Needless to say, the better result would be a full equalization program consistent with the Cons' platform, rather than having to resort to yet another round of ad hockery. But one way or another, Saskatchewan voters have a legitimate expectation of positive results from the Cons' promises. And if Harper doesn't have the political will to follow through fully on his commitments, then Calvert's call is for the next best thing.

Failures and possibilities

To nobody's surprise, Canada's Environment Commissioner has made clear that both the Libs and the Cons have utterly failed to take effective action on global warming. Now if only there was a bit less reporting of the blamefest between the guilty parties, and a bit more to the ideas to actually solve the problem.

On unwanted powers

The Cons may be eager to toss as much money and power as they can at Canada's Auditor General in order to try to find new dirt on the former Lib regime. But Sheila Fraser isn't buying into the Cons' plans:

Auditor General Sheila Fraser has turned down an offer of more funding from the Conservative government to "follow the money" and track down citizens, groups or businesses who have received $1 million or more in federal grants over five years.

Fraser told senators Wednesday she does not plan to use new powers under the government's accountability bill to audit the grant recipients because it is up to department chiefs to ensure the grants are handed out properly with spending safeguards in place.

"I expect to 'follow the dollar' only in very rare and unusual circumstances," Fraser told the Senate legal affairs committee studying Bill C-2. "We are not seeking additional funding to carry out this expanded mandate."...

(T)he Conservatives...hoped to rely on Fraser to unearth money wasted in the government-wide grant system that could be diverted to other spending initiatives or tax cuts.

"The federal government spends some $26 billion per year on grants and contributions to individuals, companies and non-government organizations," the Conservative platform said in a section devoted to strengthening the power of the auditor general.

It said Prime Minister Stephen Harper would allow the auditor general to "follow the money" by providing her with the authority to audit records, documents, and accounts of any individual, institution or company that receives grants, contributions or transfer payments under an agreement with the federal government.

Fraser said after testifying at the Senate committee she has informed the government she does not want the extra money or the job and will leave it up to the departments to ensure the grants are being handed out properly.

"We're saying no," Fraser told reporters. "We've told government quite clearly that we do not believe we need any extra funds for this because we would use those powers, if granted, only in very rare and exceptional circumstances. It would be part of our other audits. We're not planning to go and do any special work in that area."

Needless to say, Frank Luntz and his disciples among the Cons are probably disappointed that Fraser recognizes that her role isn't to meet the Cons' one-year window in which to gather dirt on the Libs.

But for Canadians generally, the move shows that Fraser is entirely willing to apply her principles consistently, and isn't eager to see her office run through large amounts of money for political purposes any more than any other government department. Which should only give her message all the more weight as the Cons' record too comes under review.

Broken deadlines

If anybody still harbored any thought that a Con-imposed deadline had any meaning, yet another fudged deadline on the softwood lumber capitulation should put that doubt to rest:

The federal government won't meet its self-imposed Oct. 1 deadline to implement the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, The Canadian Press has learned.

Sources say complications surrounding the withdrawal of more than 30 pieces of trade litigation, including resistance by some exporters to shelving their suits, make it unlikely a planned softwood border tax will start being levied as of Sunday.

The U.S. government demanded as part of the agreement that all trade litigation be withdrawn as a precondition for lifting punitive lumber duties...

If Ottawa moves ahead as planned and the U.S. duties remain in place, lumber shipments would find themselves facing a 15 per cent export tax as they leave Canada and a 10.8 per cent import duty when they cross into the United States.

A spokesman for International Trade Minister David Emerson won't not confirm that implementation was being postponed but says the government is working with the lumber industry to deal with what he called the complexities if (sic) implementing the agreement.

Not that it would be much of a surprise to see the Cons instead impose the export tax as well just to put the screws to the industry one more time. But lest there be any doubt, the Cons' attempt to pretend the capitulation is a done deal doesn't reflect the reality on the ground...which only leaves the question of just how much further the Cons will go in further trying to force the agreement on the companies who still recognize litigation to be the better option.

A growing marketplace of ideas

Several months after the NDP unveiled its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments (and on the same day MPs Peggy Nash and Peter Julian called for a national transit strategy as part of that effort), the Greens have presented their plan to reach the same goal. While there's still little reason to believe the Cons will actually pay attention to the ideas from either party, there's all the less doubt now that any politician claiming that Kyoto is out of reach is either completely out of touch, or wilfully ignoring options which are plainly available to Canada's government.

On choices

In the wake of the Cons' arbitrary and unnecessary spending cuts, word comes out that the Cons have managed to find some added money to pour into advertising for new military recruits:

Ongoing recruitment challenges are putting at risk a Conservative government promise to expand the Canadian Forces by 13,000 soldiers and boost the reserves by 10,000 more, according to documents tabled in Parliament.

Spending estimates and plans also reveal the Forces will double their advertising budget to $15.5 million this year including costs associated with a flashy and sometimes controversial new recruitment advertising campaign to cope...

According to the estimates, the Forces will get a previously unannounced $7.5 million infusion into its advertising budget this year, bringing the total to more than $15 million.

It's particularly interesting to note the relatively similar amounts and aims involved in the military advertising which is being increased, as opposed to the anti-smoking advertising which was cut. For the Cons, preventing cancer and other harmful health effects isn't apparently worth public money...but when it comes to finding new cannon fodder for Afghanistan, no amount of spending or publicity is too much.

Irresponsible and ineffective

There's no lack of reason to criticize the Cons' unnecessary budget cuts. But let's take a minute to debunk their current excuse for hacking into important programs without any real regard for the consequences:

The government defended the budget cuts Tuesday in the House, arguing that that they were necessary for the government to run more efficiently.

"We believe as a government we have a very important responsibility to ensure that every taxpayer's dollar is spent effectively, is spent responsibly, and is spent accountably," Treasury Board president John Baird said.

Now, if that were actually the Cons' aim, then it would be difficult to argue with their reasoning. The problem is that if the Cons were really out to make sure that money was spent effectively and responsibly, they'd have followed an entirely different process than the one they actually carried out.

After all, the $1 billion per year number being trumpeted wasn't itself based on a thorough program evaluation. Instead, the Cons decided first on an amount of funding to cut, then decided which programs they'd like to see done away with.

As a result, there's no reason to believe that the cuts occurred anywhere near the point where a dollar spent would produce less than a dollar's worth of positive results. And indeed it's not hard at all to predict what are likely to be far bigger losses in the long run due to the Cons' decision to arbitrarily invest less in Canada.

In contrast, if the Cons really wanted to make sure that government funding was being properly spent, the logical process would have been to actually determine which programs were achieving less than full value, and cut only that precise amount. But one suspects that following such a process, the Cons couldn't have cut into many of the programs which ultimately ended up on the chopping block - and would perhaps have had to take a closer look at some of their own dollars-for-votes programs instead as failing to achieve a reasonable return on investment.

While the Cons may be pretending publicly to have been motivated by efficiency, the reality is that their actions can only be explained by a desire to slash government regardless of the effects. And there's every reason to think that the Cons' arbitary cuts will ultimately prove to be the furthest thing from effective or responsible government.

On growing gaps

StatsCan adds to the list of areas where there's a growing gap between Canada's rich and poor, as retirement savings have been just as stagnant as incomes for lower-income Canadians:

A Statistics Canada report says families at the top of the earnings scale contributed more toward their pensions between 1986 in 2003, while this wasn't the case for lower-income families.

The growing inequality in retirement contributions was seen in two-parent families, one-parent families and single individuals...

"This is something new in Canada," personal finance and tax planning expert Tim Cestnick told CTV Newsnet from Calgary.

"We're seeing a widening of the gap between the wealthy in Canada and the not so wealthy in Canada, while the size of the middle class really is shrinking."

The article notes that the average income ($25,000) and retirement contribution ($1,200) for Canadians in the bottom 20% by income were identical in 1986 and 2003 - compared to jumps in the range of 40% for the top quintile. Which should once again highlight just how little plausibility there is in the well-worn claim that "a rising tide lifts all boats" - both in terms of current income, and in retirement savings where the gap can only be exercerbated as time goes by.

Meanwhile, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the Cons would love to see StatsCan eliminate such inconvenient facts as a form of efficiency in order the justify even more regressive outcomes in the future. But regardless of whether StatsCan is prevented from pointing out reality in the years to come, there can be little doubt that Canada's working class looks to be all the worse off in retirement - and that no number of attempts to put a happy face on the economy can gloss over the growing inequality.

A not-so-hidden agenda

The Globe and Mail discusses Industry Minister Maxime Bernier's anti-government views:

(S)ince being named to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet in February, the rookie 43-year-old MP from Quebec's rural Beauce riding has demonstrated a stern resolve to get government out of the way of business. It is a perhaps an unusual stance for an industry minister.

The holder of that post is commonly seen as the champion of government programs aimed at helping Canadian companies compete with global titans and foster innovation at home. That mindset is at the heart of Technology Partnerships Canada, the $300-million-a-year Liberal loan program that helped Bombardier Inc. become a world leader in regional jets and countless biotechnology and software companies develop new products.

Mr. Bernier is now considering abolishing TPC altogether, a prospect that is sure to bring catcalls from members of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada when the minister addresses their annual meeting today. In the same vein, the new minister is largely unmoved by calls from the Ontario government to buttress with federal money its $500-million Automotive Investment Strategy. The fund has been a key factor in attracting $7-billion in new auto investment to Ontario...

Mr. Bernier, a devoted runner who often trains with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, joined the board of the Montreal Economic Institute shortly after the right-wing think tank was created in 1999, later working at the institute on a full-time basis as executive vice-president. He penned studies arguing for a flat income tax rate for all income earners (he even wrote a book on the matter in 2003) and pushed for more private sector involvement in Canada's health care sector.

“It's part of the process of politics that there are things that maybe in an abstract world you might want to push but political realities are such that you can't make them happen for now. Maxime understands that,” said MEI founder Michel Kelly-Gagnon, now head of Quebec's main business lobby group, le Conseil du patronat.

It remains to be seen just how far Bernier will try to push in the current minority Parliament, as even with the Cons' tenuous hold on power he seems eager to encourage selloffs in the telecommunications sector. But in the longer term, Canadians should take note of PMS' decision to hand a major cabinet portfolio to somebody who's just waiting for an opportunity to push toward nominal flat taxes and hand health care over to the private sector. And Bernier's willingness to try to push dangerous reforms even in a minority situation should serve as a stark warning of what may lie ahead if the Cons aren't removed from power soon.

Knives out

There's been no lack of discussion about the Cons' arbitrary spending cutbacks. But let's take a look at a few which haven't received much press:

$4.6 million in assistance to museums.
Remember that Canada's museum system is already in a precarious state due to funding which has been stagnant at the $9 million level for the past 35 years. Rather than putting any additional investment into Canada's historical institutions, and contrary to their own campaign promise to increaser funding to museums, the Cons are instead hacking away even at the small amount already made available.

Elimination of $9.7 million in support to Canadian Volunteerism Initiative.
Is it me, or are right-wingers usually the first to claim that volunteers should be taking the place of everything government does? But for PMS and company, even investment in encouraging Canadians to get involved in their communities is considered wasteful.

Elimination of $10.8 million First Nations/Inuit tobacco control strategy.
I'm not sure whether the Cons figure they'll make enough in tobacco donations to justify cutting this program...but considering that First Nations health is an area of federal responsibility, the tiny amount of money saved now is far too likely to result in huge additional expenses later on.

Of course, in the final analysis it should be kept in mind that not a single cent of the funding cuts had to happen: the Cons chose an arbitrary number to slash from an already-balanced budget, and included the above among the issues where they wanted to show their lack of support. The question now is whether Canadians see value that the Cons don't in heritage, volunteerism, health, and all the other areas which the Cons have deemed unworthy of their funding. And if they do, then it should be a simple matter to remember the Cons' unwillingness to fund those ends when PMS goes to the voters to ask for the opportunity to do even more damage.

On debunking

Will McMartin eviscerates Carole Taylor's claim that health care spending is out of control in B.C., pointing out that health care costs haven't grown significantly as a percentage of GDP, and only project as an increasingly-high amount of B.C.'s Consolidated Revenue Fund due to a tendency to shift costs so as not to count toward that fund.

It's worth pointing out in addition to McMartin's column that Taylor's particular means of shifting costs may not be the only contributing factor to the B.C. numbers or to similar claims across the country. For that matter, it's entirely possible that cuts to other programs made precisely in the name of preserving health care are now being cited as evidence that health care is unsustainable due to its increasing percentage of expenditures.

But whatever the shell game being played at a particular time, it's always useful to take the time to point out the obvious fallacies behind the immediate claim of a neocon looking for an excuse to hack into public investment. Because while it's a shame to have to use up resources pointing out a pattern which should be easily recognizable by now, it would be all the worse to let the sleight of hand go unchallenged - especially when public health care and other essential programs may ride on the outcome.

Priorities

Nearly a year after the plight of the Kashechewan First Nation first received its due public attention, Kashechewan has seen little development while the Cons wait on a report and look for other excuses to avoid building a sustainable community. And in Saskatchewan, the First Nations housing situation has become sufficiently dire for the provincial government to step in with funding to try to make up for the federal government's lack of action in its area of responsibility.

But when it comes to $28 million in capital spending on government residences, including $3 million for 24 Sussex Drive, there doesn't seem to have been any hesitation at all.

Not to say that the latter spending isn't also a worthwhile expenditure. But surely any realistic determination of costs and benefits has to recognize that the human cost on reserves with a severe housing deficit far outweighs any benefit from the government property renovations. And that should result in funding being timed and allocated accordingly - rather than in First Nations once again being bumped to the bottom of the list.

On valuation

A sustainability consultant suggests that the value of Canada's boreal forests for environmental and tourist purposes may be in the range of $93 billion per year...and that it might be a good idea to take that value into account when determining how forests are to be managed:

The environmental work of Canada's boreal forests in purifying air and water and the tourism dollars they generate are worth at least $93 billion a year, says an economist.

That value should be taken into account when making decisions about logging, mining and other industrial activity that affects forests, Mark Anielski will urge delegates at the National Forest Congress opening in Lac Leamy, Que., on Monday. ..

Boreal forests regulate the climate by capturing and storing an estimated 67 billion tonnes of carbon in Canada alone - a job worth $1.8 billion, based on the price of carbon emissions from the global insurance industry.

The water filtration and erosion control function of boreal peatlands is worth $77 billion, and forests also generate billions in tourist spending...

"As an economist, I know that what we measure we pay attention to," he said. "The point of all this is these other assets we don't value, and therefore we don't pay attention to them in general. At the very least, accounting is about taking inventory and knowing what you've got."

Of course, it's difficult to set a precise number on the value of natural resources, particularly as new uses and ecological functions of different resources are discovered with time. But Anielski's starting point should highlight the fact that eliminating forest resources is far from a zero-cost action. And any attempt to debate the actual value of Canada's forests (along with other elements of our natural environment) can only help to call attention to benefits which may currently be taken for granted.

(Edit: corrected first sentence.)

Access failures

With access to information already in the news due to last week's mudslinging over the disclosure of requesters' names, let's take a closer look at the Canadian Newspaper Association's report on treatment of requests across the country:

Over a period of two months, 60 journalists from 39 newspapers across the country visited city halls, police forces, hospitals and federal government offices to document how public officials respond to requests for public information.

While responses from government officials varied widely across the country, there was a disturbing inclination toward secrecy in many government offices, the audit found.

Basic questions about health-care spending, crime, pesticide use and emergency preparedness posed to government officials were denied in 31 per cent of cases, despite the fact the information requested was not controversial and should be readily available...

Statistics on reported crimes and resolved cases — figures that are widely published in cities such as Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal and Ottawa — were shrouded in secrecy in other places.

In Pembroke, for example, police officials wanted $1,200 for the information. In Laval, it took 39 days, repeated calls and arguments with officials to get an incomplete answer. In all, close to 30 per cent of requests for the crime numbers were denied or slapped with fees...

Each request for information began with a visit to a government office, hospital, health district or police station, where reporters — acting as citizens but not concealing their identity as journalists — simply asked for the information.

In the 112 in-person visits, 46 resulted in records being disclosed — a 41-per-cent success rate.

The remaining 66 requests went to Stage 2 of the audit — formal written requests for the information under the appropriate provincial or federal information law.

In 35 cases, the information requested was partly or entirely denied, or there was no response within the legislated time limit.

Some delay could be far more easily forgiven in the case of requests for more complicated information, or if access to information legislation hadn't been around for decades. But there's no excuse at all for a failure to respond to requests for such simple data.

After all, the only way the information wouldn't be readily accessible would be if the office itself didn't have any document summarizing such a simple concept as crime rates or bonuses paid. Which seems highly implausible - and if true would suggest that a failure to respond to access requests is the least of the office's problems.

While some may suggest that the treatment of requests isn't likely to hold public attention, the information which can be revealed - or hidden - depending on the process applied can easily prove far more substantial. And when even the CNA's simple requests face barriers in current departments, there's all the more reason to wonder just what's being hidden when more complex requests are denied or ignored.

On contagious appearances

The latest Volpe scandal takes another couple of turns for the more comical. First, the Volpe camp is suggesting that the investigation could only have resulted from another breach of confidentiality surrounding the Libs' memberships:

CP reports that some Volpe insiders feel their team has been targeted by the campaign team of Michael Ignatieff, which includes several high-profile Quebec Liberals.

They say the Toronto Star -- which broke the story in a report on Saturday -- reported it obtained membership lists from the Quebec wing of the party, yet those membership lists are supposed to be confidential.

The insiders argue the Star only appeared to investigate party members of Italian heritage (Volpe is an immigrant from Italy) while ignoring the recruiting practices of other campaign teams.

It's probably entirely true that the violation could only have been discovered due to another camp's wilful leak of confidential information. But that only spreads the wrongdoing around the party all the more, rather than actually absolving Volpe of anything.

Second, after proudly talking up his reputation as someone whose principles won some approval from other party leaders, Stephane Dion now seems willing to shed that mantle in order to show blind faith in his party's leading embarrassment:

Montreal MP Stephane Dion, the only leadership contender from Quebec, said he knew there were concerns about party memberships but said he trusted Volpe.

"I'm aware of the concerns. I don't have the answers. It will be for the camp of Mr. Volpe to answer. I have confidence in Joe's honesty," he told the Star.

Presumably the move could only be calculated at winning Volpe's support (along with that of any of his non-deceased delegates). But the move smacks of a traditional Lib willingness to place entirely unwarranted trust in any excuse or denial from the party. And that can only make Dion all the more vulnerable to claims that he represents nothing more than a continuation of the Libs' ever-waning credibility.

In sum, Volpe's latest brush with ignominy is once again only helping to highlight all the Lib faults which caused them to lose power earlier this year. And whether or not he stays in the race now, the added tarnish on the party will make it all the tougher for any new leader to claim to have taken the party in a different direction.

Update: And of the four MPs still nominally supporting Volpe, two (Lui Temelkovski and Joe Comuzzi) are also on record continuing to trust him without any apparent reservation.

On selective secrecy

The CP reports that while the Libs helped to foster the contuining culture of secrecy in the federal civil service, several of the party's leadership contenders were entirely willing to hand out confidental membership data when the Globe and Mail came calling for help in carrying out a poll:

Three Liberal leadership hopefuls could face sanctions for giving the party's confidential membership lists to a newspaper which used the data to conduct a controversial opinion poll on the leadership race.

The Globe and Mail, which published the poll results last week, said it obtained the lists from the campaigns of Stephane Dion, Ken Dryden and Scott Brison, although the latter's camp has since denied any involvement.

Yet each candidate was required to personally sign a declaration of confidentiality before the party handed over the coveted lists of members across the country.

In the declaration, candidates agreed to take "appropriate measures to protect the confidentiality of the personal information on the lists." They further agreed that they "will not disclose the lists to anyone outside the Liberal Party of Canada." Liberal national director Steven MacKinnon said the party is still investigating the possible breach of confidentiality.

There's no apparent indication whether the disclosures were deliberately made contrary to the Libs' policy, or whether campaign staff simply wasn't aware of the agreed limitation on how the information would be used. But either way, it's fairly clear that candidates involved violated the trust of Libs who had a valid expectation of privacy in their membership information. And whether the issue was one of carelessness or wilful wrongdoing, it's not an attitude that Canadians of any political stripe should be eager to see in a future government.

The dead have risen, and they're supporting Volpe

It's been long assumed that Joe Volpe's insistence on staying in the Lib leadership race could only be justified by a desire to play kingmaker and secure a prominent role under the next leader. But after today's report about his campaign's apparent reliance on the deceased and other unsuspecting instant Libs to boost their recruitment numbers, it's hard to see how anybody could see his support as a benefit rather than a detriment - or how the Libs could be insane enough to let him anywhere near the public eye during future federal election campaigns.

On quick turnarounds

The Cons show once again that while they may be looking for ways to appease the base behind closed doors, they'll cave the moment an issue goes public. This time, the issue is funding to women's groups, as the two groups highlighted by the NDP this week have both had their funding restored for the next year:

A pair of women's groups that had prepared to close their doors for fear of cuts by the Conservative government learned Friday their federal funding has been secured for at least another year.

The National Association of Women and the Law and the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action had both taken steps to scale down their operations because of unusual delays in getting approvals for their funding.

Uncertainty has reigned around programs supported by Status of Women Canada since a campaign began this summer by pro-Conservative groups to axe the department. Status of Women Minister Bev Oda has so far failed to publicly defend her department, and has instead made allusions to mismanagement and wasted funds.

Needless to say, there's no reason for confidence that the Cons would have extended the funding if they had the cushion of a majority Parliament. But for now at least, there isn't much doubt that the Cons can be pushed to reverse back-room decisions (or wilful inaction) as long as a group can call enough public attention to an issue. Which should only provide all the more incentive for Canadians to keep a close eye on what the Cons are and aren't doing in the meantime.

Scratching the surface of deep integration

I'd planned on putting together a roundup of posts on last week's Banff deep integration conference - that is, until Alison got there first. So stop by Creekside for the full details on PMS' latest attempts to bend over for Bushco. (Not to mention the pathetic excuse for media coverage when there aren't any press releases for reporters to repeat.)

While I'm not as opposed as some might be to additional cooperation agreements with the U.S., any positive agreement would have to be based on public input, balance between business and other interests, and mutual enforceability which all appear sorely lacking in the current talks. And the more people know about what's going on, the better the chances of avoiding being stuck with yet another capitulation on our hands.

Update: catnip has more.

A well-deserved win

The NDP has again managed to push the Cons to back off of a boneheaded course of action - this time to do with the Cons' plan to reduce the number of flight attendants on Canadian airplanes:

Today, NDP Transport Critic Peter Julian, MP (Burnaby-New Westminster) applauded the overdue decision of the Conservative government to back off on lessening air safety standards by decreasing the number of flight attendants on Canadian flights.

“It’s high time that this government recognized that there can never be any compromise on the safety standards that threaten people’s lives on Canadian aircrafts. Flight attendants have saved many lives through their prompt action and dedication. Today’s development is a prime example of what an effective public campaign can accomplish when people band together to put pressure on the minority Conservative government,” stated Julian.

For the past year, Transportation Critic Peter Julian along with his colleagues from the NDP and members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represents flight attendants, have worked to prevent the government from cutting the number of flight attendants on Canadian planes.

“By reducing the number of required attendants you reduce passenger safety,” said Julian. “We will watch this Conservative government like a hawk to make sure they do not backtrack on this decision and once again put public airline safety in jeopardy."

It's only amazing that the Cons took so long (and offered so much resistance) before deciding that air safety is worth preserving. But for the moment, the adults have won another round...and with any luck, the Cons won't figure it's worth their while to try to push for reduced staff on Canadian flights again.

Obnoxious emissions

There's plenty of news related to the Cons' take on global warming today, but sadly none indicating that the Cons are any more interested in dealing with the problem than when they started indiscriminately axing programs this spring.

First, there's Gary Lunn's attempt to disavow any connection to a Con riding association meeting which has invited noted anti-environmental propagandist Tim Ball:

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn is distancing himself and his government from a Conservative party gathering in Victoria today featuring a controversial scientist who dismisses warnings about the dangers of climate change.

Retired climatologist Tim Ball, sponsored by the Calgary-based "Friends of Science" group that is partly funded by the energy industry, travels the country arguing global warming presents no threat and could even be good for Canada...

Lunn, a key player along with Environment Minister Rona Ambrose in developing a "Made-in-Canada" alternative to the former Liberal government's plans to adhere to the Kyoto accord, said the Ball event doesn't reflect the party's attitudes.

"Absolutely it does not reflect the views of the party in any way, shape or form," Lunn told CanWest News Service, noting the three riding associations bring in speakers discussing a variety of issues.

"You know, the next speaker will probably be on the other side of the issue."

It's enough to Lunn's discredit that he seems to think that the very existence of global warming is still subject to a meaningful enough debate to justify bringing in speakers from both sides of the issue.

But then, there's no apparent reason to think any voice on the sane side of the issue will be heard at this type of meeting. A cursory look at the website of the group in question suggests that past speakers haven't included a single voice which could be described but to the Con party line or further-right. Though it may be noted that the speakers have included many MPs who would presumably "reflect the party's attitudes".

Which means that Ball can very readily be taken to fit in with the Cons' general attitudes - and that the likelihood of a future speaker in favour of responsible environmental management is slim to none, whether one looks at only the Victoria group's track record or the Cons' own track record of shutting out differing opinions.

Meanwhile, Rona Ambrose is claiming to be interested in dealing with climate change by changing the subject:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose fired back at critics Thursday, insisting she's engaging other countries to move forward on climate change.

Although environmentalists have accused her of shirking her responsibilities as the chairperson of ongoing international negotiations, Ambrose said she's an active participant who's doing her homework on the file...

Ambrose explained her upcoming domestic plan for Canada would deliver results the population would see.

"Our plan goes beyond Kyoto because the priority for our government is the health of all Quebecers and Canadians and so our plan will attack air pollution and climate change," she said in French.

It's never quite explained how conflating other air pollution with climate change does anything on an international level other than to give other countries a precedent to similarly try to escape any meaningful action. But given that the Cons' entire environmental message has consistently been based on misdirection and wilful omission, it certainly doesn't come as a surprise to see Ambrose continuing the pattern.

Finally, and related to the Cons' lack of meaningful action, today also brought news that the Cons were going to "get tough" on emissions, with just one slight problem:

The Conservative government will force the automotive sector to comply with tough mandatory vehicle-emission requirements, using California's stringent standards as its model...

The Harper government will focus its environmental policy on fighting smog and improving air quality, with less emphasis on reducing greenhouse gases -- largely carbon emissions -- that are at the heart of the Kyoto accord.

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose hinted at the new measures on vehicle emissions in the House of Commons yesterday, saying she is looking at matching the mandatory emissions rules found in some U.S. states.

Now, the move toward reducing automotive emissions would be a plus if it were part of a larger plan which would actually meaningfully reduce emissions nationally. But there's no indication that the Cons plan to do anything more beyond that tiny step - and hints that the Cons are indeed directing the policy elsewhere rather than toward widespread emission reduction.

Which is particularly comical since Ambrose herself spent much of this spring gleefully asserting that in order to reduce emissions enough to meet Canada's Kyoto targets by addressing the transportation sector of the economy alone, we'd have to take "every car, train and bus off the road". After all, there's no apparent reason why the Cons now seem to think that a small reduction in emissions from cars alone starting in 2010 is anything approaching "tough"...and why they haven't considered the obvious implications of their previous sector-specific snark by recognizing the need for broad-based action to actually put a meaningful dent in greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, part of the Cons' refusal to put together any real strategy to reduce emissions may be readily traced to their main supporters:

Even though the government is expected to announce its environmental plan soon, sources say the cabinet has yet to make a final decision on a central question: Namely, how it will address carbon dioxide emissions from the energy and oil and gas sectors.

The most likely scenario currently on the table is that a new Clean Air Act will signal an intent to regulate a host of pollutants, but the time needed to consult industry and the provinces, as well as to pass the act through the Commons and Senate, will likely mean most of the new pollution limits won't take effect for at least two years -- and 2010 for the regulations affecting the auto makers.

In sum, the Cons are once again showing that while they're prepared to cut environmental programs without warning, consultation or thought, they aren't prepared to do anything to replace those programs until years down the road. And even with a timeline built for indefinite delay tactics, they aren't willing to suggest any meaningful action at the end. Which only confirms that despite the Cons' protestations to the contrary, they're still taking the side of Tim Ball and his sponsors against environmental sustainability.

Update: And only the Cons, faced with the above set of stories in the same day, could feel the need to clarify that they haven't even committed to the minor actions reported.

On weak responses

Not surprisingly, the Cons have responded to the Arar inquiry by immediately pushing toward all the recommendations which would tie other groups' hands, while doing as little as possible themselves. While the RCMP is set to undergo significant reforms (potentially including the ouster of Giuliano Zaccardelli), the Cons' response in dealing with the U.S. can only be described as pathetic.

First, there's Peter MacKay looking for an excuse to spend more time with Condi without actually filing the formal complaint recommended by O'Connor J.:

One of the judge's recommendations was that Ottawa file a formal protest with the U.S. and Syrian governments over Arar's treatment.

MacKay didn't endorse that idea Thursday, but neither did he shut the door on it.

He said he's had discussions with Conoleezza (sic) Rice, the American secretary of state, and added that more talks may be forthcoming.

And then there's Stockwell Day, whose request to have Arar's name removed from the U.S.' terror watchlists couldn't have been more timid and unconvincing:

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Thursday that he has nudged the Americans to remove Maher Arar's name from their no-fly list after a public inquiry unequivocally cleared him as a terror suspect.

Day's appeal to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - which he hinted was a gentle suggestion rather than a demand - comes after the Canadian government removed Arar and his family from a border watch list that is used to keep tabs on terrorism suspects.

"We have removed the Arar family name, and that of his wife, from any lookout list and passed that information on," Day said under questioning in the House of Commons.

"Also, we have sent an indication that the United States may wish to do the same."

And those are the governmental recommendations where the Cons have apparently done anything at all, as there hasn't been any apparent word on eliminating profiling in information-gathering or on clear lines of accountability within the government.

Again, it shouldn't be any great surprise that the Cons are utterly unwilling to follow any recommendation that involves showing some spine in discussions with the U.S. But the Cons' disinterest in making a meaningful statement shows all the more that entirely willing to continue unquestioningly the political culture that led to Arar's torture in the first place. Which may make it only a question of when, and not whether, more innocent Canadians will end up suffering the same fate as Arar.

On both their houses

In the latest development in the Access to Information privacy breach scandal, the Cons have issued their usual implausible defence. Frankly they could have fairly realistically claimed that the policy was a remnant of Lib procedures - but the Cons had to go a step further in claiming that not a single one of the Cons' staffers involved read their e-mail such as to know that the violation occurred. Which sounds utterly ludicrous on its face - and opens up an equally significant issue about the Cons' non-responsiveness to the civil service if it's true.

Not that it seems the least bit unlikely that the policy existed under the Libs as well, particularly given their plain willingness to attack the Cons for doing precisely what they themselves did earlier. But that isn't a defence of the Cons so much as a sign of the rot in both parties - and a hint that it's time to look to somebody besides the Libs and Cons for a real change in government.

On incredible sources

CBC points out that the results of Canadian foreign aid spending are currently far too difficult to trace:

Canada's access to information laws make it hard to find out how billions of our foreign aid tax dollars are spent, says an Ottawa researcher.

Amir Attaran, a professor at the University of Ottawa, said part of the problem is Canada's foreign aid money is now funnelled through third party agencies in other countries — such as the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) — that are not required to release the information to the Canadian public...

Attaran filed an access to information request as part of his research and said he was told by a CIDA official that the foreign agencies running the projects must OK any information that's released.

"Because the money from Canada is pooled with that of other countries, those other countries may have a right of veto over whether Canadians can know how the money was spent," he said...

Alasdair Roberts, an expert on government secrecy at Syracuse University, said the World Bank and the UNDP have an abysmal record for releasing information, despite having very good transparency rules on paper...

"There's nothing blocking the Canadian government from saying that we want audits for programs that are being funded with Canadian money and that we intend to release those audits under Canadian access law," he said.

Based on that beginning, it would seem appropriate to highlight the issue with a quote from a remotely credible opposition party on the issue. Sadly, the article instead turns to Keith Martin:

Liberal foreign affairs critic Keith Martin said the secrecy about how the money is spent is only one disadvantage of funding development projects via third party agencies.

"When monies are going to large organizations like the World Bank, not only do we lose control — we also lose credit on the ground," he said, adding that people in countries benefiting from our aid seldom work directly with Canadians anymore.

Now, I'd hope it can be agreed that the main question in foreign aid should be how much assistance it can provide - not how much credit Canada can seek for it. But that aside, the even bigger problem with Martin's statement is that the aid structure he's criticizing is essentially the same as what the Libs themselves funded for over a decade before.

Need I even point out that current Afghanistan funding through the World Bank merely expands on funding long provided by Martin's own party? Or that in a document which appears to go up to 2003, the World Bank described Canada both as "deeply involved" in shaping the World Bank, and as a consistent top contributor?

It could well be that the benefits in providing funding through third-party agencies such as the World Bank may outweigh the costs - and indeed it's worth considering whether Canada may be able to get the best of all worlds by using its "deep involvement" to ensure more accountable structures. But one way or the other, it's plain that the Libs don't have the slightest bit of credibility in criticizing the aid structures which they put in place. And any plausible suggestions for improvement will have to come from a party which can't be held responsible for precisely the problems that may now exist.

On larger lessons

Thomas Walkom discusses the fallout from the Arar Inquiry report, pointing out that while the RCMP bore the brunt of O'Connor's criticism, it was a wider political demand for visible action against terrorism that led to the torture of an innocent Canadian:

(A) more careful reading of the three-volume report of O'Connor's judicial inquiry provides a picture that, at one level, is friendlier to the RCMP than the past two days of headlines suggest and yet, at another, is more chilling. For what the critics forget is that in the months following the terror attacks on New York and Washington, RCMP officers were operating in a context that they had not created. It was not the Mounties who passed, in record time, a sweeping anti-terrorism bill that turned upside down some of Canada's traditional liberties. It was the Parliament of Canada.

By criminalizing as terrorism an entire range of often vaguely defined activities, this bill did two things. First, it brought the Mounties, as Canada's national police force, back foursquare into the national security game.

Equally important, the new anti-terror laws gave the RCMP a mandate to ferret out activities which, in more normal times, would not have been the subject of criminal investigations — such as associating with the wrong people or carrying out otherwise lawful activities that could be construed as aiding the wrong people. Having once done this the Mounties were somehow supposed to collect evidence capable of passing muster in a criminal trial.

Lurking in the background was an overwhelming climate of fear. As O'Connor recounts, the operating assumption within government throughout the immediate post 9/11 period was that another terror attack was not only possible but imminent.

Few were calling on police to be careful. Quite the reverse. The public wanted quick action and so did the politicians. Normally sensible media commentators were recommending that security services engage in so-called "black operations" even if that meant cutting a few civil-liberty corners.

While the institutional reforms at the RCMP suggested by the report should be welcomed, the more important question is whether we've moved past a political environment where the desire for decisive action is seen to outweigh the need for such niceties as evidence and truth. And with the Cons trying to place all the blame on the Lib government rather than recognizing the wider context (which they helped to create), it doesn't seem unlikely that the current contrition toward Arar will be soon forgotten and replaced by a new thirst for blood.

More sorry excuses

The CP reports on the Cons' not-so-surprising unwillingness to argue in favour of PMS' refusal to apologize to Maher Arar. But needless to say, the Cons' failure to be so brazen as to continue trying to justify Arar's torture (as they did in opposition) hasn't led to any progress in Harper's actual position:

Maher Arar finally has a unanimous apology from the House of Commons for his detention and torture in Syria.

But a senior Conservative minister insisted Wednesday that he and other cabinet members were expressing their personal feelings by joining in the move — not necessarily speaking for the government...

The confusion arose after the Bloc Quebecois presented a motion stating that “in the opinion of this House an apology should be presented to Maher Arar regarding the treatment he has been subjected to.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had repeatedly refused to offer such an apology on behalf of the government since the release of a public inquiry report that cleared Arar’s name Monday.

But the Tories, apparently fearing political embarrassment, gave their consent Wednesday after the Liberals and NDP signed on to the Bloc motion...

NDP Leader Jack Layton welcomed Tory support for the motion but called it “unfortunate” that Harper couldn’t be present in the House when it passed.

“I hope that he will now, in writing, convey his sense of apology on behalf of all the citizens of Canada as the prime minister,” said Layton.

Ultimately, PMS' continued refusal to apologize in his capacity as Prime Minister may only keep Arar's plight - and the recommendations arising out of it - in the public eye longer than the Cons would like. But either way, it's a shame that it took an opposition motion to bring about any form of parliamentary apology...and it's to the Cons' discredit that they're still splitting hairs to avoid offering the same formally on behalf of the government.

Rallying time

NDP MP Irene Mathyssen points out that while the Cons may not have taken up the reactionary call for a direct frontal attack on Status of Women Canada, they're pushing SWC programs out of business by conveniently ignoring funding applications:

“By not responding to funding applications, the Conservatives are allowing programs to shut down, one by one.,” said NDP MP critic for the Status of Women Irene Mathyssen. "What's next? The entire department? It looks like Bev Oda is spoiling to dismantle the Status of Women department."

As of Sept. 12, The National Association of Women and the Law, has closed their doors due to insufficient federal funding. The Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA) will shut down on Sept. 26. Organizations have put in applications for funding, but have heard nothing from the Minister responsible for Status of Women, Bev Oda.

“It is clear that this government is not interested in consulting with the experts in the field and has no intention of investigating what is really needed to promote women’s equality in Canada” said NDP President Anne McGrath.

Women’s groups have complained that the Minister has not consulted them on the program review and will meet with them only after the Status of Women Canada mandate has expired on Sept. 26 this year.

While things may look dire now, keep in mind that there is a recent precedent for the Cons being shamed out of abandoning funding for social issues. And the Cons' attempt to eliminate SWC through neglect rather than a public execution suggests that they may not be comfortable defending the move once it's forced into the limelight.

So, stop in at the Progressive Bloggers' discussion of how best to handle the situation, and let the Cons know for yourself that they won't get away with trying to sweep this one under the rug.

On totalitarian tendencies

CTV and the Montreal Gazette confirm the Cons' paranoia and disregard for the law, reporting that the Cons are encouraging the disclosure of the names of Access to Information requesters in violation of the Privacy Act:

Federal government officials appear to be breaking Canadian law by revealing the identities of those who seek documents under the Access to Information Act, a newspaper reported Wednesday...

(T)he Montreal Gazette claims the identities of some requesters have been shared among government departments -- including the Prime Minister's Office.

Documents obtained by the Gazette under the Access to Information Act show that in one case, the name of a reporter about to receive documents under the act was revealed during a telephone conference call among federal government officials.

The reporter's name was disclosed by an official working on behalf of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department, the Gazette reports.

The newspaper says documents show that officials from at least eight departments were involved in the telephone call and minutes of the meeting were sent to 19 other people -- including Stephen Harper's communications director Sandra Buckler.

Deputy information commissioner Alan Leadbeater told the Gazette there had been other cases of confidentiality violations --particularly when there was a concern that the information could result in embarrassing questions to a cabinet minister.

"We see situations where representatives from the minister's office will meet on a regular basis, sometimes weekly, with the access to information people to find out what access requests have been received and what material is being released, and in the course of those meetings there is a tendency to share with the minister's staff the identities of the requesters," Leadbeater was quoted as saying by the Gazette.

It isn't hard off hand to see some of the potential abuses resulting from disclosure of the identity of requesters - ranging from the Cons knowing which reporters may have damaging information and avoiding their questions, to having an advantage in Question Period by knowing which parties have been researching which issues, to knowing which current or potential government employees may be using requests to follow up on their own suspicions about what may be occurring within government departments.

It's tough to say which of those potential uses (or what other possiblilities) may be the greatest motivator behind the Cons' actions. But there should be little doubt that Con ministers wouldn't be systematically encouraging the illegal gathering of information, and the PMO wouldn't be micromanaging departmental Access to Information requests, if the Cons weren't planning on putting their illegally-gathered information to some use. And if the Cons are setting up an institutional culture which encourages the illegal disclosure of the identity of requesters, there's no reason at all to have any confidence that the information won't also be used illegally once it's acquired.

Just a few months ago, the Cons told the civil service to honour the spirit of the Access to Information Act. Now, it's clear that the Cons are themselves violating both the spirit of that legislation and the letter of the Privacy Act by wrongfully appropriating private information for their own purposes. Which means that if Canadians indeed want a culture of accountability, they'll have to start by taking away the Cons' ability to punish anybody who's interested in holding the government accountable.

Up in the air

The latest Strategic Counsel poll suggests a tightening battle for voters both in Quebec and nationally:

The Tories also dropped to third place in Quebec when respondents were asked about their voting intentions. Sixteen per cent said they'd vote Conservative if an election were held today, down from 23 per cent. The Bloc Québécois had the support of 48 per cent of those surveyed, up from 43 per cent; the Liberals were at 18 per cent, down from 21.

The NDP are up to 11 per cent in the province, from 6 per cent, likely due to the party's policy convention in Quebec this month...

Nationally, the Conservatives had the support of 35 per cent of those surveyed, followed by the Liberals at 26 per cent, the NDP at 19, the Bloc Québécois at 12 and the Green Party at 8 per cent.

Of course, it's tough to read too much into a single poll - and indeed even the seemingly-large changes in Quebec are within the poll's margin of error. But with both the Cons and Libs dropping and the Bloc not apparently doing much to earn its increase, it looks like there's plenty of potential for significant movement in La Belle Province based on relatively small changes from today's numbers. Which leaves only the question of which parties will seize the opportunity in the fall session of Parliament and beyond.

Consistent positions

PMS is refusing to apologize to Maher Arar, supposedly on the basis that he wasn't in power at the time of Arar's ordeal. Canadians may be surprised to find out that by this logic, Harper was apparently Prime Minister during the entire time span from 1885 to 1923.

On choosing one's focus

The Chief Electoral Officer effectively confirmed today that the Cons violated the Canada Elections Act in their 2005 convention scandal, putting a potentially-substantial amount of illegal money in their coffers for the 2006 campaign. Which of course means that it's time for Lib bloggers and commenters to blame their election loss on a single legal donation to the NDP.

Naturally, the Libs' own woeful campaign should be the even more obvious source of responsibility for the fall of PMPM. But even leaving that aside as requiring an impossible amount of self-reflection, more than a few Libs seem eager to overlook Con law-breaking in favour of another round of jeers at the NDP. Which should cast serious doubt on the Libs' interest in opposing PMS - not to mention their interest in winning any part of the NDP swing vote when past Dipper donations are seen as a basis for purging a candidate from their leadership race.

A minute to reflect

The Star reports on Canada's death toll in Afghanistan, including both the CCPA's conclusion that Canadian soldiers are facing three to six times the death toll of U.S. and UK troops, and the multi-casualty weekend which didn't make it into the CCPA report:

"A Canadian soldier in Afghanistan is three times more likely to be killed than a British soldier and four and a half times more likely than an American," said Steven Staples, co-author of "Canada's Fallen," a report he co-wrote for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

"And a Canadian in Kandahar is six times more likely to die than an American soldier deployed to Iraq," he said...

In England, statistician Sheila Bird did an earlier risk assessment study similar to that done in Ottawa. Yesterday, she said in a telephone interview that when the new fatalities are factored in, Canadian soldiers are now facing twice and possibly four times the risk of death that British soldiers faced in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The British had 46,000 troops engaged in the 43-day invasion but lost only 33 soldiers.

Since May 1 this year — a period of 141 days — the Canadian force in Afghanistan, numbering about 2,200, has already lost 21 soldiers.

Relating the number of fatalities to the number of military personnel deployed is crucial, Bird said, because "this helps to accurately measure the real rate of risk on the ground for coalition forces."

She emphasized that the risk Canadians face in Kandahar is "absolutely" riskier than what Americans face in Iraq.

And for those wondering if the casualties are at least helping to produce better conditions for Afghanistan or other measurable positive results, the all-too-obvious answer is not for a second:

One American analyst, John Pike of globalsecurity.org, wondered how long Canada's military could sustain such losses.

"Canada may reconsider how much more of this it wants," Pike said. He said he, too, was familiar with military pronouncements of victory with impressive numbers of enemy dead and low casualties for western forces.

"We spent years doing that in Vietnam," he said of the U.S. war there.

In Afghanistan, Pike envisions a near-endless scenario.

"It's not going to end," he said of the Afghan war. "And it may get worse before it gets better ... it's going to last for decades."

In the midst of this combination of bad news on the ground and justified skepticism about the Cons' self-promotion, the Cons still think that neither the soaring casualty rate nor any other aspect of the Afghanistan quagmire is worth more than a minute of their time. But Canadians may not be so quick to dismiss either the loss of Canadian troops, or the complete lack of actual or projected progress...which could lead Canadians to find an exit strategy from PMS' jingoism far sooner than the Cons would like to admit.

Hard to be hopeful

I'd mentioned earlier my plan to write about the recommendations in the Arar Inquiry report. While there's plenty of blame to go around, the recommendations appear to support existing policies and procedures to a surprising degree, with most of the changes only involving better adherence to the current rules. And what's worse, the real changes which are suggested don't appear the least bit likely to be undertaken anytime soon.

With respect to the RCMP, the primary subject of his report, O'Connor J. identifies primarily a need for improved training to increase consciousness of human rights issues (p. 323-327), and more precise wording both in classifying subjects of investigations (p. 335-337) and in the caveats attached to information provided to foreign agencies (p. 340-342). While the ideas are certainly worth implementing, there's no indication that they could be meaningfully enforced either in the present case or in general, meaning that these recommendations can likely be swept under the rug.

From a governmental standpoint, the most significant recommendations are a suggestion to object to the misuse of Canadian information (p. 344 in general, p. 361-362 in Arar's case in particular) and to avoid disclosing information to (p. 345-347), or placing undue weight on information from (p. 348-349), human rights abusers. But with the current regime obsessed with maintaining nothing but a positive face toward the U.S. and its ever-malleable "war on terror", matters aren't likely to improve anytime soon. And short of classifying the U.S. as a "foreign government with (a) questionable human rights record" which shouldn't receive Canadian intelligence information, there's little reason to think similar cases could be prevented in light of Bushco's consistent assertions of infinite power where national security is concerned.

Similarly, I doubt many readers can honestly expect the Cons to enforce a standard of information-gathering free of racial or cultural profiling (p. 355-358), or to be willing to draw a clear line of accountability to the Foreign Affairs Minister (p. 353-354) in future cases rather than leaving responsibility just as thoroughly undefined as it was in the Arar case.

Finally, the recommendations to provide better support to Canadians detained abroad (generally at p. 349-355) seem somewhat more likely to be implemented, but only seem to be dealing with serious problems after the fact.

While it's somewhat reassuring to see Maher Arar vindicated, there should be little comfort either in the lack of any clear accountability for his torture, or in the fact that the substantive recommendations to prevent similar incidents look highly unlikely to be implemented. Indeed, it's hard to say which is more scary: that relatively minor variations of wording based on insufficient RCMP training may been enough to lead to his torture, or that we're now stuck with a government which is even more willing to ignore the consequences of actions as long as they're nominally aimed at anti-terrorism purposes. Sadly, it'll be to nobody's surprise if more Canadians are now, or will be soon, subject to exactly the kind of terror suffered by Arar - and it may well be that the only lesson learned by the Cons will be to make added efforts to bury any similar stories.

Arar roundup

I'll deal with the recommendations which came out of the Arar inquiry in more detail later. In the meantime, Pogge, catnip, The Galloping Beaver, My Blahg and Le Revue Gauche all have discussion of what by all rights should be today's biggest story.

Questionable

In case there's any doubt which party is devoted to dumbing down Canadian politics, the Cons are now under the impression that all the issues surrounding the deepening quagmire in Afghanistan can be thoroughly dealt with in Question Period alone:

Parliamentary Secretary to the foreign affairs minister Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Alta.) said last week that there's no need to introduce a votable motion in the House by the NDP as the mission has already been extended until 2009...

Mr. Obhrai said the opposition parties could ask their questions during the daily Question Period.

"We will be answering all the questions [in the daily QP] that they have, so we don't feel there's a need for any debate," said Deepak Obhrai, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in an interview with The Hill Times recently. "This is an open government and we have nothing to hide so we will be answering any questions they have, they can ask the same questions during the Question Period."

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) also told CBC's The National recently that the government does not want another debate on Afghanistan...

In a sense, it shouldn't be much surprise that the Cons favour a format where Harper's inner circle of trained seals can recite talking points ad nauseum, rather than one where their backbenchers might either demonstrate that the party truly is intelligence-optional, or worse yet present better-informed opinions than those approved by Central Command.

That said, it takes an awfully low opinion of both the value of an interplay of ideas and the attention span of Canadians to think that serious policy issues can be addressed through Question Period alone. And if the Cons really have that little interest in meaningful discussion, then it may be time to restore them to their more familiar place on the opposite side of Question Period.

Pressing the issues

The Hill Times reports on the continued battle between PMO and the non-CanWest press gallery, where efforts from the press to work out an agreed solution have apparently been ignored by PMS:

The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and The Canadian Press still haven't heard a word from the PMO on setting ground rules for access...

"Not to be belligerent, but to be consistent," she told The Hill Times in an email, explaining that in June, the managers of the Star, the Globe and Canadian Press approached the PMO to try to come up with a compromise. "[We want] to have an intelligent, responsible discussion about what new conditions the Harper government was trying to enforce. We were promised a discussion. It still hasn't happened. Collectively, I believe the three news organizations still have hopes for that intelligent, respectful discussion. It is out of respect for that process that we aren't changing course at present. We await a proper, professional reply."

Ms. Delacourt said this is important because "it's incumbent on journalists to question arbitrary measures. It's in the Globe's motto, printed on the editorial page every day: 'The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.'"...

A call to the Prime Minister's Press Office was not returned and as of last week, the Press Gallery Executive still hadn't heard from the PMO on the issue of lists and access.

It's worth noting that the gallery's willingness to concede some ground comes despite anecdotal evidence that PMS has already taken steps toward cherry-picking questions - which can surely only become worse as more contentious issues arise. But even with the gallery willing to make unnecessary concessions, it doesn't look like Harper is the least bit interested in considering their interests enough to look for a compromise.

But then, as the article points out, the Cons' policy doesn't prevent the press from holding PMS accountable in any way - and indeed should encourage the kind of reporting which is bound to get far more results than merely waiting around for scripted lines from PMS himself:

"On the face of it, you might argue that the PMO is seeking to have an unfair control," Prof. Winn said. "But I can understand the democracy advocates who say the Prime Minister's Office shouldn't have the right to decide who asks him questions. But an accidental byproduct of the PMO's policy, if it were actually implemented, would motivate reporters to go study policy as opposed to just report on the theatrics of press conferences."

Prof. Winn said that there are many issues that reporters don't look at because they are simply focused on what people say...

Journalists should focus more on what governments do, Prof. Winn said. "Journalists who are most upset that the Prime Minister's Office would control who asked the questions seem to be very cynical about the truthfulness and integrity of politicians including the Prime Minister. But the logical consequence of true skepticism about the value of what a politician has to say would lead one to say I don't care what they say, I'm going to find out what's happening."

Of course, that end result would be a far greater victory for accountability than any return to the previous scrum system - particularly when most of the reporting on the Cons seems to be based on self-serving leaks rather than anything resembling investigative journalism.

Which isn't to say that open and fair access to the Con cabinet wouldn't also be an improvement. But there's still plenty going on worth covering - whether that means a greater focus on the opposition parties who don't see the media as an enemy, or on investigating matters which the Cons almost certainly won't want to talk about. And the more time the gallery spends covering those issues rather than repeating the Cons' talking points, the better informed the Canadian public will be.

On hot air masses

The Cons have consistently demonstrated their complete disinterest in dealing with global warming as an international problem. But the CP reports that when it comes to investing in votes rather than environmental results, it may be a different story:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose's emissions plan, set to be released in the coming months, is said to be strongly inspired by Quebec's own emission plan, adopted last June...

Officials in Quebec's environment ministry took advantage of the thaw in relations, sending Ottawa a long list of programs it wanted financed.

A draft of the federal plan, obtained by The Canadian Press, suggests Ottawa will place a priority on transportation projects aimed at cutting greenhouse emissions, thought to be responsible for certain elements of climate change.

Provincial Environment Minister Claude Bechard said in an interview Friday that Quebec decided to ask for "more rather than less" in the hopes of hitting the jackpot.

Bechard, who met with his federal counterpart last Monday, said he expects Quebec to receive "at least $328 million and maybe more."

But sources close to the negotiations say the $328 million figure is "a paltry sum," and believe the Tories will give Quebec significantly more in the hopes of improving its electoral fortunes in the province come election time.

Funding became a hot-button issue during Quebec's negotiations with Martin's government.

The Liberals handed over $538 million to Ontario in 2005, and Quebec calculated that it deserved $328 million.

Needless to say, any solution actually targetted toward dealing with global warming should involve targetting funding based on what's most likely to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And it's no surprise that the Cons are utterly unwilling to move in that direction. (In that regard, it's worth noting that the Cons only claim to be "inspired" by the Quebec plan, which presumably means ignoring Canada's committed Kyoto targets which Quebec plans to meet.)

But far be it from the Cons to miss an opportunity to use a facade of interest in emission reductions as an excuse to hand money to Quebec's provincial government. And even more striking is the Cons' apparent willingness to delegate its policy-making to a single province, with no regard for the varying issues that face different regions of the country in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Which should emphasize that while the Cons are doing their best to claim to be environmentally conscious, they're much more interested in the theatre of announcing funding than actually achieving any results. And that leaves only the question of whether enough Canadians will see through the mask to ensure that the Cons aren't rewarded for their cynicism.

Denying responsibility

Chuck Strahl appears to want to sound philosophical or wise in the CP's preview of the fall session in the House of Commons. But in trying, he nicely hints at the Cons' unwillingness to accept their own power in government:

"The things you can't control, you can't control. It's a fact of life," Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said following a Conservative caucus meeting Friday.

"Can you control drought on the Prairies? Can you control what happens in Afghanistan, or when Israel and Lebanon tie into one another? You don't control any of those things, and I don't know who could suggest that you should or you can."

Of course, in each case it's clear that nobody holds total control - but it's equally clear that Strahl simply wrong in trying to downplay expectations of his government doing anything on issues where there's plainly some significant ability for the government to influence events.

After all, the Cons not only have the ability to assist farmers affected by a drought, but are going out of their way to avoid the fight against global warming - a decision which is likely to increase the incidence of drought in the future. The Cons have similarly gone out of their way to present continued aimless war in Afghanistan (and the resulting casualties on all sides) as an inevitability rather than a choice. And the Cons helped to egg on the Israel/Lebanon conflict by taking sides immediately and rejecting any attempt to end the violence, rather than stepping up by seeking peace from all sides.

In each case, there are undoubtedly limitations on what the Cons or any other government can do. But that doesn't excuse what looks like an attempt to disclaim all responsibility or ability to act on these issues either. And if the Cons really think their place in government gives them no ability to influence events whatsoever, then it's long past time to give power to somebody who's actually willing to use it to good ends, rather than to deny that it exists.

On dangerous lessons

The Sun reports on the lessons which David Emerson believes he's learned from the softwood lumber debacle. And judging from what Emerson seems to believe, it looks like the softwood sellout may be just the beginning of what the Cons are willing to give away in order to avoid disputes caused by Canada seeking to hold the U.S. to its previous bargains:

Swallowing staggering legal bills and heavy spinoff costs was Canada's tough lesson that trade disputes like softwood lumber must be resolved before they explode into a cottage industry, says Trade Minister David Emerson...

"The No. 1 lesson out of softwood lumber is that there will be disputes, but you've got to solve them in a relatively timely and more immediate way," Emerson says.

"Because once a dispute is allowed to simmer and percolate for a long enough period of time, it almost becomes a self-perpetuating dispute where people become dependent upon it to earn their income and positions become entrenched and animosities develop."...

"It's been a real problem, a festering wound, and to have that dealt with is a fundamental step forward that will allow us to continue to broaden the number of issues and the number of co-operational opportunities with the U.S. in particular we can take advantage of," he says.

"It became very broad and affected many areas, and I don't think you can overstate how important it has been for the reshaping and the re-engagement of Canada's economic relationship with the U.S."

Needless to say, the "cottage industry" suggestion is about as ridiculous a straw man as one could try to create under the circumstances. The only "cottage industry" which Canada should be concerned about on the softwood lumber file is CFLI - which of course was rewarded for its efforts with half a billion dollars. Now, equivalents in other industries will have nothing but added incentives to perpetuate themselves with a continual stream of baseless trade complaints against Canadian exporters - knowing that PMS will readily pay their bills in the end if it'll make the U.S. happy.

But as long as a cottage industry is working against Canada's best interests, the Cons don't seem to have the least bit of problem funding it. The Cons only seem to want to step in with their "co-operational" philosophy to ensure that Canada's businesses won't endanger complete goodwill between Canada and the U.S. by inconveniently pointing out the illegal wounds inflicted by American protectionism.

Which means that there's little reason to think that other industries will start with anywhere as strong a bargaining position as the Cons happily frittered away on softwood lumber. Instead, Emerson and company are looking to make sure that future capitulations are immediate. And from the softwood lumber experience, there can be no doubt that the Cons are willing to throw any Canadian industry under the bus if it'll add to PMS' reputation for "co-operating" with Bushco.